Talk:Spanish Empire

attention to attempts at silencing other users

Pay attention to the history of the discussion page. User the Red Hat is erasing critical information introduced by other users oin an act of vandalism. I will not engage in an edit war. Just pay attention at what he does. He has erased some comments and a map introduced as a comparison for the double standards used here. Personally I am also starting to think that he and Lord Corwallis are trolls of the same person. anyway his conduct is what should be judged. Look at what he is deleting from the discussion page--JovetheGod (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

JovetheGod has been permanently blocked - yet another sockpuppet of Cosialscastells. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

do not delete my opinion:

Sorry what?. You Lord Cornwallis make against me an ad-hominem attack. Im put the map make for Red Hat to prove the affirmation of Double standards.--Resvoluci (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Here the map of British Empire by Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

:

--Resvoluci (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have filed another sockpuppet report on User:Resvoluci. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A good demonstration of why sockpuppetting is a bad idea: User:Cosialscastells has intentionally misled many editors such as myself. This in itself creates a bias against whatever Cosialscastells been arguing for. It has also created a bias against any new editors, anon IP or otherwise, who come to this page and replace the map with an old version. It is very hard to believe these new-appearing editors are not Cosialscastells under some puppet name. It may be that someday some new editor from Madrid will appear with an agenda similar to Cosialscastells's and will find him or herself subjected to unfair bias due to Cosialscastells's actions. This is one of the reasons sockpuppetry is a bad idea. It creates ill-will toward any editors who at all resemble the person who misled in the first place. To Cosialscastells, whose sockpuppets are particularly transparent: Please stop, you are only creating more of the very bias you seem to be objecting to. You claim there is an anti-Spanish historical bias on this page. For myself, I like to think of myself as very pro-Spanish. I have worked hard on many Wikipedia pages to demonstrate the early and expansive power and influence of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. Too often this history is ignored. Yet since I support User:Trasamundo's map you apparently group me into a set of people who are anti-Spanish and pro-British. This makes me wonder whether I am wasting my time here trying to improve the Spanish history of the Americas on Wikipedia. In short, you are undermining your own agenda. As for the British Empire page, it may well be that there it makes a sad comparison with this page on the Spanish Empire. Since my interest is the Spanish Empire and not the British Empire I have spent very little time looking at the British Empire page. I agree that the main map there, when compared to the one here, suggests a maximal and minimal approach. But for me this does not mean that the Spanish Empire map is problematic: rather I find the British Empire page troublesome. Repeatedly restoring the Spanish Empire map does nothing to further my sympathy but rather just the opposite. Finally, while I think the Trasamundo's map is excellent, I find the text on this page in need of much work. It is poorly organized and needs a great deal of copyediting. I have done a little toward that end, but much more remands to be done. A wholesale reorganization of the text would probably be for the best. If nothing else, it is highly Eurocentric, with information about the Americas inserted here and there in sections mainly devoted to European affairs. In any case, while I agree that the comparison of the British and Spanish Empire pages reveal a poor state for Spain and a relatively good one for Britain, I am unconvinced that this has to do with an anti-Spanish bias. Rather I suspect that there are many English speaking editors who are interesting and willing to put work into the British Empire page such that it has become fairly well done, while the Spanish Empire page languishes in relative disinterest. This does not indicate a double standard so much as an indicator of the interests of English-speaking peoples. Repeatedly restoring an old version of the map is a waste of time, as there as numerous editors who will revert such changes. A better use of time would be editing the text of this page. It needs much work! My advice is: forget the map, spend your energy on sometime that might last more than a day. Pfly (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Pfly, one thing is to "put work into the British Empire page" and another is to enhance Britain's achievements in a way that seems far from neutral. Whoever made the point originally about the difference between the Spanish and British Empire maps is right. The differences in style and layout are huge. The Spanish map is ridiculous. I don't know who is Cosialscastells and frankly I don't care. But editors should not go around blocking other editors when their own behaviour is being questioned. In any case, let us return to a more constructive attitude. JCRB (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cosialscastells, and his various alter egos, were blocked not by any of us, but by Wikipedia's administrators. First for this piece of abuse [1], then for serial sockpuppetry. The only unconstructive attitude here has come from him, pretending to be more than one person to make his view seem more popular than it really is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

For god' s sake stop using the sockpuppetry issue to avoid the main issue. I am not that Cossialcastels. ?Try and proof it if you can, Red Hat. There are many people here you disagree with you, that is all. I myself suspect that the Red Hat and Lord Corwallis or whatever is the same person, but I may be wrong, so whatever. The main issue is the clear double standard. We all know that in this and in many other subjects cherry picking information we can write very different articles, in this case maps, using as many sources as we want. So, the main issue is the standard. I haved spoken of simple comparisons like Patagonia in the Spanish map, Amazonia in the Portuguese map,Antarctica or the North Pole, in the British map. Just a few examples that clearly show the different standards used. I hope to come to an agreement that is reasonable and honest. I have a busy life and I am leaving you for some time. In case of need, you know that I vote for the map that I have reintroduced several times and that was there before, also after a long discussion. Good luck and I hope that honest views will prevail. --81.33.232.182 (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another Cosialscastells sock has been blocked [2]. With luck, he'll soon run out of old sock accounts and won't be able to continue is vandalism. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Suitable map of the Empire’s claims

On April 18, 2009 I uploaded two maps, one of the British empire claims with names to all the places it claimed throughout its history, and the other was of the Spanish Empire. They are both on wikimedia commons and they are called:

File:British Empire (including names).png File:Spanish Empire (including names).png

I was successful in adding the British map to the British Empire page, replacing the old one. I feel that these two maps are more accurate and explanatory. I was not able to add the Spanish Empire map to its page because of protection. The map that is currently there is unattractive, does not show the lines of the countries that have been formed because of the empires in our present day of the borders of the territories of Spanish claims. My map on the Spanish Empire lets you see our present day borders shadowed in the back ground and brown lines around the Spanish Territories that existed at certain times in its history. Please try to add this map to the page and replace the map that is there with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free the kingdom of tibet (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are a good faith new user rather than another incarnation of one of two map-obsessed editors that have frequented both articles. In both cases, you should engage on the talk page first. This article's choice of map is highly contentious (read talk page history above), and that is why it is protected. The BE is a featured article and went through a lengthy review to get that way, so again you should use the talk page to explain your case. Finally, I don't mean to be rude, but both your maps look extremely amateurish. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the map to the one suggested by user "Free kingdom of Tibet". It has two colors (not seven) and is much more straightforward. The previous one has caused unnecessary long disputes on this talk page and has proved inappropriate. JCRB (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Lord Cornwallis, who reverted this edit, there is no consensus for this change, and the only person who deems it inappropriate, who is not a permanently blocked sockpuppet (Cosialscastells) or a mysteriously registered new user (Tibet) is you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind Mr. Red Hat that this page does not belong him, or to any one editor or group of editors. There is no consensus for this map. Since it was introduced a few weeks ago, there have been constant messages of criticism, be it by established users or by editors who have not registered, which let me remind you, is also legitimate. The existing map is confusing, messy, and reveals an anti-Spanish bias which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Please revert it to the previous one or we will need to go to dispute resolution. JCRB (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not unanimous, but the majority (myself, Trasamundo, Ogre, LordCornwallis, Pfy) are OK with the current map. It is just you and a series of sock accounts run by permanently blocked user Cosialscastells who are against it. Therefore, consensus is for the current map. You are welcome to take it to dispute resolution if you wish. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a user who frequently edits stuff here but it seems strange to present the historic entry of an empire by a map showing how it fell apart. The current map should be further down and a less biased one (showing as the Spanish empire became an empire and was known as an empire at its peak) be used as the opener. Compared to the British map showing all the territory they ever held (regardless of at what point of time and how long) seems fishy. Regards. 84.154.19.131 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone change the map to File:Spanish Empire Anachronous en.svg please? They are the same, but this one is being deleted and would improve the Commons better if it was, (to reduce redundancy and clutter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.115.81 (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

wrong information

Hi guys, i find this garbled:

For instance, traditionally, territories such as the Low Countries or Spanish Netherlands were included as they were part of the possessions of the King of Spain, governed by Spanish officials, and defended by Spanish troops. However, authors like the British historian Henry Kamen contend that these territories were never integrated into a Spanish state and instead formed part of the wider Habsburg possessions.

What?

Kamen Argues that the nothern provinces were never integrated to the Spanish State (as we can understand ruled de facto from Madrid) due the cruelty of Alba in the beginning of the revolt. That consecuently caused the Eighty Years' War. (Despite the first stanzza of the dutch national anthem dating from 1568), But the catholic provinces of the south ( Spanish Netherlands article ) were definitely integrated to the Spanish State, not only to the Spanish Habsburgs, but to the Spanish Bourbons under Philip V of Spain in 1701 ... Veracruzian (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So wha?. don't you get it?. This article is dominated by a group whose sole aim is to belittle anything related to the Spanish empire, just read the discussion and to what the pay attention and what they ignore. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.235.8 (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cosialscastells is back

I suggest we ask for the page to be protected again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! The Ogre (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

After five attempts to put back the map in spite of consensus reached here, I've requested protection. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for another month - I kept this article on my watchlist after the last lot of nonsense, and put the protection in place before I saw this thread; apologies for a wasted RFPP report (I'll head that way now to close it). EyeSerene^talk 09:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Heh, this has all happened backwards. I'm sure you noticed your request was denied, but I think the additional recent activity more than justifies protection so I'm not going to remove it again. I'll leave it at one month though, and we can reinstate as necessary. EyeSerene^talk 10:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much EyeSerene. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I would like to begin reworking this article so that it can get towards GA, and finally FA status, as I did with British Empire. However, this will involve major changes to the article, because it's extremely poorly written, it goes into far too much detail on certain topics, and it strays very far from the manual of style. One major issue I have with the article is the huge discussion of affairs in Europe. This should be cut down to a couple of paragraphs and much more space devoted to events in the overseas colonies. Before I embark on this and get reverted, however, I just want to make sure I have people's support here? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking the article needs something like that for a long time, but have not had the time to make the effort myself. If work like that starts up, I'll do what I can to help. Pfly (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. Perhaps we could agree on the main sections? I suggest minor tweaking as follows:

• Origins, to 1492, covering the Canaries and the reconquista
• 1492-1580, covers expansion in the Americas, Philippines, rivalry with Portugal
• 1580-1640, union with Portugal, struggles with Holland and England
• 1640-1713, decline, loss of European possessions
• 1713-1824, Bourbons, Napoleonic invasion, loss of American colonies
• 1824-1898, remnants in Caribbean, Philippines, loss of Spanish-American war
• 1898-1975, Spanish Africa
• Legacy

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That looks reasonable to me although I have some large gaps in my knowledge of the history so can hardly comment with authority. The dates nicely match those of the map. The period 1713-1824 is a long one with, as I understand it, a kind of "late flowering" of empire under the Bourbons followed by the wars of independence in the Americas, some of which went on for quite some time. Depending on how much material there is it might make sense to split into two sections, one on the recovery and one on the losses. Just a thought--obviously the sectioning should more or less match the amount of text. Since my main area of interest is North American based the 1713-1824 dates looked quite broad--quite a lot happened during this time! But I suppose that could be said for the other eras too, in different places. The trick I guess to writing about such vast topics is keeping things reasonably terse yet comprehensive. Anyway, I will dig out my books that relate to the topic. Do you think the existing text can be largely salvaged, or are you thinking of rewriting most of it? Also, I'm curious what other editors here think about all this. Hopefully the usuals will weigh in. Pfly (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what is improving and expanding, and in addition WP: PRESERVE makes sense to me. I also want to ponder about the approach and the problems, and here I meet the disparity between the history of Spain (properly the peninsular metropolis), regarding to the history of its territories, and for example, in History of Spain the Iberian Union is not a special separate chapter, but such issue about the Iberian Union may deserve a separate chapter from the perspective of the overseas territories (if the references agree with this commentary). Also I think that in spite of the fact that without an ultramarine empire it is not possible be a Spanish empire, also I must say that Spain as a international power was orientated to Europe, while the overseas territories were lagging behind what happened in Europe, I want to emphasize that European affairs were part of the history of the Spanish empire, and adding content about events in the overseas colonies is not exclusive with affairs in Europe, I think that the Spanish dynamics in Europe is also dynamic of the Spanish empire, with what we have that the Spanish empire was including so much both the European as ultramarine territories, [3] something that I wanted to comment before cutting down the paragraphs. I also think that the division into chapters is accurate with the historical processes and, although initially are broad, I guess that it will have more specific subsections. Trasamundo (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, European affairs should be covered. Simply not to the huge depth that they are now. When attempting to summarise centuries of global history, one has to touch on many events and themes, and it is impossible to do any of them justice. But that's OK, because encyclopaedias aren't books, they are summaries. So while we can WP:PRESERVE discussion of Spain in Europe, we are going to have to junk a lot of the detail. There's no way around that, if we want to get to FA status. We can copy and paste the text into a new child article, if preserving the content is a concern. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true. What I want is to show the difficulty of the approach, imagine that you discard to lot of the detail, and another user comes and says that he expects to see this material in the article because it is important and referenced, and so, it begins a discussion or a edit war, but if in the introduction the focus is explained, and in the sections they are added templates as Template:See also or Template:Main, then it would help something to avoid such misunderstandings. With this, I want to show that probably the labor of modifying of the article Spanish empire also concerns the article History of Spain, regarding the transfer of contents, linking and complementing them between different articles, for example, inside the article History of Spain, we find the link to the article Habsburg Spain where you can find its similarities with the current editing of the Spanish empire. In this way, before eliminating contents it would suit transfer them to another existent article and to establish some type of link to find them easily. Trasamundo (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That map is a masterpiece! trasamundo señor you are the new Velasquez! Beautiful map with seven shades that please the eye and I also love how small the territories of empire are shown! good job trasamundo, keep it up! -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.118.23 (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Whig History prime

No mention whatsoever of genocide, plunder and squander of the greatest silver and gold mines in the world or the abusive treatment of Indians in ocupied lands. Bravo!. Please aply it to other pages, such as Nazi Germany, the Rwandan genocide or the current Sudanese genocide. (btw, LOVE that legacy section, it's cutesy how naive it is)--99.192.61.125 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely Whig history would traditionally be associated with advocacy of the Black Legend? john k (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you could start with the US too. I wonder why most people of Amerindian ancestry actually live or come from Hispanic America? Were they not supposed to have disappeared under the evil Spanish. How come they indeed disappeared in the US or Canada? How come Amerindians and Mestizos make up 90% of the population of Mexico and they are almost extinguished in the US, if Hispanics do not count? History is very funny, right?. How much cheap anti Spanich propaganda! Move on, it is becoming outdated! I would like to hear of an empire that did not impose itself with violence, especially half a millenium ago. If you know of one, please tell me. Bambo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.77.193 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You're totally right. The Black Legend has done a lot of harm when mixed with uncultured people. And nowadays, a lot of this propaganda comes from some Amerindian people who just don't realize that if other european nation would have arrived (let's say, England of France), they couldn't complain because they just wouldn't exist (let's say, as in USA or Canada). Please, stop this childish reactions. We're all grown up people, the English don't bark about the vikings invasions and pillage to Denmark/Norway, the Spaniards don't complain to Italy about the roman conquer and the systematic plunder of Spain's silver mines. Have some sense of dignity please.--Infinauta (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for a general discussion on the Spanish Empire. If people have specific suggestions for improving the article please could they make them. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the map is extremely bad. I agree with previous complaints about it. Bambo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.236.188 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Catholic Monarchs" Obsession

An editor is repeatedly making this edit which apart from being extremely poor English, is splitting hairs to a ridiculous degree (yes, it was technically Castile, but English language historians commonly use the term "Spain" after 1492). Does anyone feel that the edits should stand? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been following this edit-obssesion, he's been wandering here for days just changing that. I don't think his edits should stand, there was a consensus already reached before his arrival. Anyway, I've told him to discuss the issue here if he's willing.--Infinauta (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest balancing exactitude with fluency: using Castile or Catholic kings in official claims/events, then using Spanish people, interests, etc. (Notice in this article "According to Henry Kamen, Spain was created by the Empire, rather than the Empire being created by Spain.")

The Spanish Wikipedia refers to the "Reyes Católicos", stating clearly the exact parts involved in official issues like signing a treaty: "Se conoce como Tratado de Tordesillas el compromiso suscrito en Tordesillas el 7 de junio de 1494 entre Isabel y Fernando, reyes de Castilla y Aragón, y Juan II rey de Portugal "

The experts balance it like this:

Boxer, Charles Ralph (1969). The Portuguese Seaborne Empire 1415–1825. p.229-30 - "...the undiscovered worlds had been, in effect, divided between the Crowns of Portugal and Castile by the Treaty of Tordesillas" then simplifies, using "spanish America, Spanish missionaries, etc.

Diffie, Bailey (1977). Foundations of the Portuguese Empire, 1415–1580. p.172 - "The arrival of Columbus liberated Castile from he narrow strip of sea....Suddenly, in the seas in which Portugal had had no rival, it was faced with Spanish claims."

p.283-refers to Spain in simplified chronology of Tordesillas; refers to the "John III...insisted with Catholic kings when the Tordesillas treaty was being worked out. When the Spanish balked, João garrisoned the border forts" (Catholic kings then Spanish interests, Spanish people: and I do prefer "Catholic kings" to "Monarchs", which sounds pretentious). Hope it helps,--Uxbona (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please Add

Please add an interwiki link for the Macedonian version. Thank you.“